What Patriarchy?

I am stating the obvious: women are physically weaker and slower than men, and men have exploited that fact throughout all of history (and possibly
much of prehistory) to keep women down.

Your position — that feminism is a conspiracy to do men down — is a sorry attempt to legitimize and empower male chauvinists. Or did you not post
this?

So what do feminists really want? What implicit ideology lies beneath the lie “we want equality”, and “death to patriarchy”? What rights
do men have left to give them, or rather, build for them? They want what every ideology wants: to assert itself in the public square, to seize
power—if not in the political arena, at least in parasitic form within the minds who come across it. To a privileged entitled soul such as my self
at least, it sounds like a lust for power, position, money and security.

All fascists have risen to power on the popular resentment of losers who want somebody to blame for their own uselessness. You are providing precisely
that aid and comfort to every creep of a misogynistic loser out there, so here's a Godwin for you: your tactics are fascist.

Since that 50% can beat the living daylights out of the other 50% any time it pleases, it isn't strange at all.

I can't believe that you, LesMisanthrope, are actually advocating this revolting chauvinist position.

This thread makes me want to spew.

So you are advocating that women are the weaker sex? I don't think you know what chauvinism means.

Some women were physically smaller and, therefore, would naturally have less strength than some men, but women and children were beaten without a
second thought back then - and it happens now - more than you would care to admit. The only difference now is that the police don't need a woman's
complaint to arrest the assailant and remember women had nowhere to go back then, as there were no women's shelters in place at that time.

What was the programming, what was the mindset, how has that been carried forth (unconsciously) in today's society, in today's relationships?

On the night of November 15, 1917, the superintendent of the Occoquan Workhouse, W.H. Whittaker, ordered the nearly forty guards to brutalize the
suffragists. They beat Lucy Burns, chained her hands to the cell bars above her head, then left her there for the night. They threw Dora Lewis into a
dark cell and smashed her head against an iron bed, which knocked her out. Her cellmate, Alice Cosu, who believed Lewis to be dead, suffered a heart
attack. According to affidavits, guards grabbed, dragged, beat, choked, pinched, and kicked other women.

...and neither the superintendent nor any of the forty guards were charged.

Some of the ways women were oppressed in the 1900s:

1. Could not vote
2. Could not own property in their own name.
3. Had no legal right to the money she earned when she worked.
4. Could not divorce their husbands without severe cause, and even with that, they could not keep her children.
5. Could not bear witness in court.
6. Could not serve on a jury.
7. If tried, they were tried by an all male jury.
8. Could not attend the major universities. They were all male schools. Yes. All of the big universities.
9. Could not use birth control and had to have baby after baby until her body was worn out and she died.
10. It was legal for a husband to beat his wife black and blue as long as the cane or rod he used was no larger in circumference than his thumb.
11. It was legal for a husband to brutally rape his wife.

Some women were physically smaller and, therefore, would naturally have less strength than some men, but women and children were beaten without
a second thought back then - and it happens now - more than you would care to admit. The only difference now is that the police don't need a woman's
complaint to arrest the assailant and remember women had nowhere to go back then, as there were no women's shelters in place at that time.

What was the programming, what was the mindset, how has that been carried forth (unconsciously) in today's society, in today's
relationships?

I do not wish to downplay the severity of violence that any person has survived. It is obvious that women have been abused countlessly by men, and
this is likely due to the differences in physical strength as you specified. However, according to statistics, maltreatment of children is perpetrated
by mothers acting alone for 36.6% of the cases—perhaps more than you would admit—whereas it’s only 18.7% for fathers acting alone. (19.4% by
both parents acting together). In the case of child fatalities, “more than one-half (53.5%) of perpetrators were women
and 45.3 percent of perpetrators were men; 1.1 percent were of unknown sex. (See table 5–3 and
related notes.)”

Here we have instances of women beating, battering, abusing and killing beings of lower physical strength. To use feminist logic, I might have to
start a child’s rights campaign to protect them from being beaten by women. So let’s leave the kids out of this for the time being.

1. Could not vote
2. Could not own property in their own name.
3. Had no legal right to the money she earned when she worked.
4. Could not divorce their husbands without severe cause, and even with that, they could not keep her children.
5. Could not bear witness in court.
6. Could not serve on a jury.
7. If tried, they were tried by an all male jury.
8. Could not attend the major universities. They were all male schools. Yes. All of the big universities.
9. Could not use birth control and had to have baby after baby until her body was worn out and she died.
10. It was legal for a husband to beat his wife black and blue as long as the cane or rod he used was no larger in circumference than his thumb.
11. It was legal for a husband to brutally rape his wife.

I will not deny any of this. I cannot. But remember, these were the institutions, built and maintained by men in positions of oligarchical power, not
all men. Not even every man could vote, not unless he owned land and was white. Men first had to fight and die for their right to vote during the
French revolution and American revolutions. Where were the women at that time? Woman's suffrage was paved in the bodies of men.

The rules of marriage were designed to assert theocratic, not male power. Still to this day, that same male-centric, rule of the father, religious
institution of marriage is not only supported by, but hoped for by the majority of women.

Here's a shocker: Khod (God) is Female! Yep I said it. SHE gave birth to the universes. Every mans body was originally female before testosterone
kicked in. The female body is the perfect form, not the male. Even in nature most if not all growth patterns are feminine in nature. The Fibonacci
spiral, water, the sun, all feminine. Men have been covering up this fact for thousands of years. We all know that a man can't give birth. I'm a guy
who wised up an realized this deep truth. Monica Sjoo's Artwork "GOD GIVING BIRTH" says it all.

Here's a shocker: Khod (God) is Female! Yep I said it. SHE gave birth to the universes. Every mans body was originally female before testosterone
kicked in. The female body is the perfect form, not the male. Even in nature most if not all growth patterns are feminine in nature. The Fibonacci
spiral, water, the sun, all feminine. Men have been covering up this fact for thousands of years. We all know that a man can't give birth. I'm a guy
who wised up an realized this deep truth. Monica Sjoo's Artwork "GOD GIVING BIRTH" says it all.

It is true. All men come from women. If men are where the oppression and subjugation of women come from, where do men come from?

Since that 50% can beat the living daylights out of the other 50% any time it pleases, it isn't strange at all.

I can't believe that you, LesMisanthrope, are actually advocating this revolting chauvinist position.

On the night of November 15, 1917, the superintendent of the Occoquan Workhouse, W.H. Whittaker, ordered the nearly forty guards to brutalize the
suffragists. They beat Lucy Burns, chained her hands to the cell bars above her head, then left her there for the night. They threw Dora Lewis into a
dark cell and smashed her head against an iron bed, which knocked her out. Her cellmate, Alice Cosu, who believed Lewis to be dead, suffered a heart
attack. According to affidavits, guards grabbed, dragged, beat, choked, pinched, and kicked other women.

Well I must say that although I due agree that the above quoted example of brutality against women is a stark reminder of dysfunctional human
interaction. I would like to point out that there are probably even more examples of such and greater brutalities of men against men. Yes... I will
acknowledge that physically it is a more even playing field the bottom line is your example shows that brutality was no respecter of gender ( or at
least less so ) in those days. But... it also must be acknowledged that the very fact that women are (as a general rule) smaller and weaker than
men...puts them in a very advantageous position within the psychological realm of human experience. Yes.... she battled with us shoulder to shoulder
throughout history to get here. She could not help but gain her advantage should reason and rationale prevail ( at least higher forms of reason than
those that render brutality ).

Now enough of this already and let us arrive at the crux of the matter. The problem is... Mommy wants her cake and to eat it too and Daddy wants to
eat Mommies cake and to have it too. The reality is Mommy doesn't mind Daddy ruling over her as long as he does it in a way that turns her on.
Now... when our lower nature prevails over reason then things go awry and Mommy is not happy. To facilitate the exposure and extraction of such
behaviors Mommy manifests herself in all manner of ways. The Virgin and the Harlot represent two indispensable parts of femininity. We want Mommy to
be as faithful and pure to us as a Virgin and yet we want her to be our sexy dirty little whore as well ( but only ours ). I am convinced that the
satisfaction of these desires cannot occur through the actions of the flesh we must enter such things through the spirit and the incorruptible power
of love. Hence the verse that there is no condemnation to those who walk after the spirit and not after the flesh. Mommy and Daddy will both recieve
the fulfilment of their desires as soon as we are done here. And when it gets plugged into the heavenly amplifier ( aka New Jerusalem ) Daddy will be
able to please Mommy within 144 different sets of parameters ( 12 manner of fruits x 12 gates ). Just remember Mommy to be a good little girl because
Daddy will be pouring unto you double into your cup of firey torment.

On the night of November 15, 1917, the superintendent of the Occoquan Workhouse, W.H. Whittaker, ordered the nearly forty guards to brutalize the
suffragists. They beat Lucy Burns, chained her hands to the cell bars above her head, then left her there for the night. They threw Dora Lewis into a
dark cell and smashed her head against an iron bed, which knocked her out. Her cellmate, Alice Cosu, who believed Lewis to be dead, suffered a heart
attack. According to affidavits, guards grabbed, dragged, beat, choked, pinched, and kicked other women.

Well I must say that although I due agree that the above quoted example of brutality against women is a stark reminder of dysfunctional human
interaction. I would like to point out that there are probably even more examples of such and greater brutalities of men against men. Yes... I will
acknowledge that physically it is a more even playing field the bottom line is your example shows that brutality was no respecter of gender ( or at
least less so ) in those days. But... it also must be acknowledged that the very fact that women are (as a general rule) smaller and weaker than
men...puts them in a very advantageous position within the psychological realm of human experience. Yes.... she battled with us shoulder to shoulder
throughout history to get here. She could not help but gain her advantage should reason and rationale prevail ( at least higher forms of reason than
those that render brutality ).

Now enough of this already and let us arrive at the crux of the matter. The problem is... Mommy wants her cake and to eat it too and Daddy wants to
eat Mommies cake and to have it too. The reality is Mommy doesn't mind Daddy ruling over her as long as he does it in a way that turns her on.
Now... when our lower nature prevails over reason then things go awry and Mommy is not happy. To facilitate the exposure and extraction of such
behaviors Mommy manifests herself in all manner of ways. The Virgin and the Harlot represent two indispensable parts of femininity. We want Mommy to
be as faithful and pure to us as a Virgin and yet we want her to be our sexy dirty little whore as well ( but only ours ). I am convinced that the
satisfaction of these desires cannot occur through the actions of the flesh we must enter such things through the spirit and the incorruptible power
of love. Hence the verse that there is no condemnation to those who walk after the spirit and not after the flesh. Mommy and Daddy will both recieve
the fulfilment of their desires as soon as we are done here. And when it gets plugged into the heavenly amplifier ( aka New Jerusalem ) Daddy will be
able to please Mommy within 144 different sets of parameters ( 12 manner of fruits x 12 gates ). Just remember Mommy to be a good little girl because
Daddy will be pouring unto you double into your cup of firey torment.

You do realize you are speaking about 50% of the world’s population, of which you are a contributing member of. Are you implying you are just
as guilty? Or are you in the habit of demonizing vast amounts of people with your little brush?

Of course I realize it. We are speaking in generalities here. Obviously all men don't oppress all women, but we all belong to societies in which women
have historically been oppressed and have yet to achieve equality. We are contributing members of those societies. So yes, as a man, I bear some
responsibility for the way women are treated, as do all men.

I don’t advocate one gender over the other. My position is to defend masculinity from the superstitious and superficial witch-burning
mentality of your position—the fear of masculinity—feminism.

That is exactly what fascists say. They're always defending their side from the evil of the other. Except that the evil only exists as a creation of
their own minds, to be deployed for their own purposes.

Remember Goering at the Nuremberg trials?

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

These are precisely your tactics, and your claim of innocence is spurious.

Your fear of masculinity is perhaps an indication of a lack thereof. We usually attempt to extirpate masculinity in animals through castration.
Maybe you’ve already done so mentally.

Women might not have achieved equality worldwide but there are places where the pendulum has swung back to such a degree that women are actually
treated better by law. And in these places radical feminism have enough clout to act crazy on a regular basis, hell, they've even invented a
pseudoscience that would turn a lot of ufologists red with envy for all the traction and legitimacy that it has gained.

I find it funny that in atheist Sweden, supposedly a land of reason and skepticism, that such a pseudoscience as gender studies(or perhaps Swedish
gender studies from a feminist perspective would be more apt) has largely avoided being put in the dustbin or being subject to the customary ridicule.
I guess it helps having pc culture on your side.

As for my personal opinion, if it wasn't clear enough I think there's more evidence for some of the outlandish ATS claims than there is for some of
the claims of these so called social scientists.
Claiming that the behaviour of men and women and the differences in the physical brains of men and women is nothing but a social construct is not an
uncommon notion.
So, going by that logic they have to reverse what nature intended by social engineering, and this is currently underway in kindergartens all around
Sweden.
It's funny that they're seemingly exempt from criticism that would have put to stop any other field of science had they even been close to as
tenuous as some of this 'science'.

And of course, a lot of it is state funded.. what to do? Laugh or cry?

Whether intentional or not the effect is the same, it's a massive psychological operation and I would wager that it is not in our best interests.

Of course I realize it. We are speaking in generalities here. Obviously all men don't oppress all women, but we all belong to societies in
which women have historically been oppressed and have yet to achieve equality. We are contributing members of those societies.

When you say “men do this” and “women are that”, realize that you are speaking about entire genders here. Abuse, oppression, rape, are the
crimes of individuals and groups, not genders. Your feminist theory is untenable, and speaking in generalities isn’t going to fool anyone with half
a brain.

“Since that 50% can beat the living daylights out of the other 50% any time it pleases, it isn't strange at all.”

Except, they don’t. There’s not even an argument here. As you might guess—and as you display with your own gender-specific benevolence—for
every man that would hurt a woman, there are countless men who would stand beside her, and even give their lives for her.

So yes, as a man, I bear some responsibility for the way women are treated, as do all men.

Cue the romantic nonsense. “As do all men”… here we go again. And women have no responsibility? Are women not autonomous in your little world?
Feminist tactic #1—appeal to shame.

That is exactly what fascists say. They're always defending their side from the evil of the other. Except that the evil only exists as a
creation of their own minds, to be deployed for their own purposes.

Remember Goering at the Nuremberg trials?

Throwing me in with the likes of Goering no less. Comparing me to a Nazi. Based on…what? It’s not even conjecture, it’s straight up dishonesty
at this point. Feminist tactic #2—straw man, ad hominem and demonizing.

If I’ve said anything misogynistic, or in anyway spoke out against women please tell me, don't imply it; if I’ve advocated any one gender’s
rights over another, show me, don't imply it; but until then, you’ve really no argument besides fallacy, have you, Astynax?

I believe women were not permitted to join the American military as a warrior/fighter back then, am I wrong? However, women were there in various
different roles - which may have saved countless lives and which you seem to have omitted from your post.

Thousands of women served as nurses and in other support roles in the major armies.

During the twentieth century, women in the World Wars became indispensable for the total mobilization of society's resources

Patriarchy "skepticism" is common among "men's rights" advocates and other critics of feminism. Their basic argument seems to be "Women have the vote,
and make up 50% of the population, so they must already have equal power." (Oh, we're sorry, where's the first female POTUS?) Or even better, some
generic, odd idea that women actually control society, as evidenced by the cries of their loss of power.[2] There are some aspects of society in which
men do have certain disadvantages, such as in the criminal justice system, or in certain historically female-dominated professions such as nursing;
however the MRAs make the mistake of attributing this to the evils of feminism, rather than realizing that it is precisely because of patriarchal
ideology that such disadvantages exist.

I believe women were not permitted to join the American military as a warrior/fighter back then, am I wrong? However, women were there in various
different roles - which may have saved countless lives and which you seem to have omitted from your post.

I believe women were not permitted to join the American military as a warrior/fighter back then, am I wrong? However, women were there in various
different roles - which may have saved countless lives and which you seem to have omitted from your post.

What is this point in reference to?

What patriarchy? This patriarchy!

What is one right I have that you do not?

You are missing the point! Existing patriarchial ingrained and unconscious bias attitudes are manifested in a myriad of ways not only to women
(continuing unequal pay for equal work; unequal division of labour both inside and outside the home) but to people choosing alternative lifestyles
from the societal programmed, expected conformity of "norm", and this is proven from women not being allowed in high leadership religious and fortune
500 roles to homosexuals still being denied the right to marry and the legal rights that it brings.

You are missing the point! Existing patriarchial ingrained and unconscious bias attitudes are manifested in a myriad of ways not only to women
(continuing unequal pay for equal work; unequal division of labour both inside and outside the home) but to people choosing alternative lifestyles
from the societal programmed, expected conformity of "norm", and this is proven from women not being allowed in high leadership religious and
fortune 500 roles to homosexuals still being denied the right to marry and the legal rights that it brings.

Your post: Mommy wants her cake and to eat it too and Daddy wants to eat Mommies cake and to have it too

Mommy wants her equal share of cake and eat it too while doing the dishes while Daddy sits and watches TV and expects Mommy to bring him his piece of
cake too.

I think Daddy better get off the couch and go do the dishes while Mommy takes a tubby. We'll talk about the rest later. The point
being.... Daddy needs a little reorientation. It is true that for the most part men feel that their job ends when they punch out at work and it is
also true that a woman's work is never done. Mommies efforts will not be in vain. Her end shall be accomplished as ordained by her oneness.

Your post: Mommy wants her cake and to eat it too and Daddy wants to eat Mommies cake and to have it too

Mommy wants her equal share of cake and eat it too while doing the dishes while Daddy sits and watches TV and expects Mommy to bring him his piece of
cake too.

I think Daddy better get off the couch and go do the dishes while Mommy takes a tubby. We'll talk about the rest later. The point being....
Daddy needs a little reorientation. It is true that for the most part men feel that their job ends when they punch out at work and it is also true
that a woman's work is never done. Mommies efforts will not be in vain. Her end shall be accomplished as ordained by her oneness.

Harry

Perhaps in a future long, long away...as for now, equality and accommodation should be the order for today.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.